Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Evaluating Tourism Market Regulation from Tourists’ Perspective: Scale
Development and Validation
Abstract
Despite the increasing attention given to tourism regulation in recent years, great ambiguity
surrounds this concept and no valid and reliable instrument exists to measure tourism market
regulation (TMR). This study uses multi-step mixed methods to develop a measurement
scale of TMR from the perspective of tourists. In the first step, interviews and focus groups
are undertaken to formulate a clear definition of TMR and its attributes. In the second step, a
scale development procedure is adopted to analyze two rounds of data for dimension
exploration via EFA and confirmation via CFA. Through these analyses, five dimensions are
generated: regulatory oversight, truth in advertising, tourism contract compliance, fulfilling
tourism contracts, and travel feedback processing. The reliable and valid results contribute to
refining TMR in the context of China. They also provide a useful tool for tourists and
destination marketing organizations to measure and govern TMR in other regions/countries.
Keywords
tourism market regulation; regulatory oversight; fulfilling tourism contract; travel feedback
processing; scale development.
2
Introduction
In recent years, the tourism industry has developed rapidly in China. In 2018, the number of
Chinese domestic tourist arrivals reached 5.53 billion, alongside 141.20 million inbound
tourists, and generated a total income of RMB 5,970 billion, which was 10.5% higher than
the total income in 2017 (MCT 2019). Employment opportunities increased directly and
indirectly by the tourism industry account for 10.29% of the total employment in China
(MCT 2019). Clearly, the tourism industry plays an important role in the Chinese economy.
However, parasitic phenomena, such as zero-commission tours (Zhang, Heung, and Yan
2009; Zhang, Yan, and Li 2009), free-of-charge or even negative-charge tours (Fu 2010; He,
and Cui 2006; Jia, Wei and Yang 2011), “ripping off” tourists (Harris 2012; Ling 2014), and
unethical marketing practices (Cavicchi and Santini 2011; King, Dwyer, and Prideaux 2006;
March 2008), are accompanying the booming development of tourism.
Such malpractices in China’s tourism market are severely harmful to the consumers of
tourism products and disturb the regulation of the tourism market as well as the
sustainability of the tourism industry. This situation has drawn considerable attention among
and criticism from the Chinese public. Every year after public holidays, disputes involving
all kinds of tourism enterprises cause heated media and public debates. Tourism regulations
include wide-ranging issues, such as tourism experience, environmental impacts, social
cohesion, local culture, and livelihood of local residents. Tourism market regulation (TMR)
has become a focus of concern in the society owing to the inconsistencies and abuse in the
tourism market. The tourism industry is defined as a series of goods and services that depend
on the tourism consumed by tourists (Frechtling 1999; Frechtling 2010; Smeral 2006).
Systematically establishing a set of standards to assess the situation of market regulation
from the perspective of tourists is fundamental to the protection of tourist rights and the
preservation of the tourism industry’s ethical integrity.
3
Many countries and areas have established laws and regulations to regulate their
tourism market (Grant 1996; March 2008; Zhang, Yan, and Li 2009). For instance, the
European Commission (EC) Package Travel Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3288) launched
clauses to protect consumers (Grant 1996). The European Parliament and the Council of the
European Union (EU) composed Directive (EU) 2015/2302, which stipulates important
consumer rights in relation to package travel and linked travel arrangements (The European
Parliament and the Council of European Union 2015). Japan passed the Tourism Nation
Promotion Basic Law, Travel Agent Law, and Hotel Law to create an environment
conducive to travel. Australia created the Regulation of Travel Agents Act to promote fair
terms of trading. Hong Kong enacted Travel Agent Ordinance and Travel Agents
Regulations to control and regulate travel agents, including the Travel Industry
Compensation Fund Rules, which provide consumers with a procedure for ex gratia payment
and regulate the amount of ex gratia payment and financial penalty. Travel Industry
Ordinance (No.37 of 2018) sets detailed regulations for the whole travel industry
(Legislative Council of Hong Kong SAR 2018). Moreover, mainland China has laws and
regulations that aim to protect tourists, such as the Tourism Law, Travel Agency Ordinance,
Contract Law, Consumer Protection Law, Advertising Law, and Criminal Law.
The tourism system is a combination of intangible service products with tangible
aspects. It has a reasonable number of laws and regulations to monitor tangible aspects of the
industry, such as tourism service contracts, quality of products, and refund procedures.
However, such laws and regulations have not effectively banned activities that disturb the
intangible aspects of the tourism market, such as zero-commission tours that lead to forced
shopping, overpricing, and implicit misleading advertising. Regulations for illegal and law-
breaking practices likewise exist, but unethical but lawful practices, such as price-cutting and
unethical shopping practices, are difficult to monitor and regulate using existing authorized
4
laws and regulations. These activities have great negative impacts on tourists’ experiences
and destination image (March 2008), easily drawing substantial attention and spreading
negative word of mouth on social media. In addition, while existing tourism regulation
studies emphasize the leading role of the destination government and service operators (Kohl
and Greenlaw 1983; Qu, Ennew and Sinclair 2005; Thomas and Thomas 1992), the role and
viewpoints of tourists, as service receivers, are largely overlooked in the consultation and
execution stages.
Statistics show that tourism complaints in 2018 are categorized into six areas: aviation
(24%), hotels (29.92%), travel agencies (27.88%), tourism attractions (4.93%), and tour
guides (1.89%) (The People’s Daily 2019). The refund and change of ticket, inconsistency
between travel contract and itinerary, forced shopping by tour leaders, and poor service
attitude are the most frequent complaints (The People’s Daily 2019). TMR is frequently
referenced in tourism information and policies, but what exactly is TMR? What are its
dimensions? How should it be evaluated considering unethical—rather than merely illegal—
activities from the perspective of tourists? Despite the rapid growth of China’s tourism
market, no valid and reliable instrument is available to measure the situation of TMR. For
the reasons discussed above, evaluating TMR has become an important issue for the tourism
industry.
To fill the research gap, this study investigates TMR by defining the construct and
developing a measurement scale. First, it uses an inductive approach to conceptualize TMR
and specify its domain, as recommended by Hinkin, Tracey, and Enz (1997). Through
qualitative methods, a theoretical framework and conceptualization of TMR are established
by delineating its conceptual domain and highlighting its sub-components (Riefler,
Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012). The wording and content validity of TMR measurement
items extracted from the literature review and qualitative research are assessed. Second, this
5
study analyzes two rounds of quantitative data with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), respectively. The findings are then used to develop a
multidimensional scale of TMR. Consequently, this study can enrich TMR research and
provide a useful tool for the government and destination marketing organizations (DMOs) to
measure and manage TMR from the perspective of tourists.
6
Literature Review
Market Regulation
Scientific assessment of the situation of market regulation is the foundation to improve
market regulation (Research Group on the Evaluation of Market Regulation 1998). To date,
most research on market regulation adopts an economics perspective. Prominent
contributions include spontaneous order theory, which is based on economic liberalism.
Proposed by Hayek (1967), spontaneous order theory points out that market order is the
result of irresistible spontaneous evolution rather than a process of top-down central
planning or a well-organized design. According to Hayek’s Sensory Order, market
regulation can be perceived by consumers (Hayek 1952). Smith (1776) considered the
“invisible hand” of price and competition mechanisms as the foundation of market
regulation. Marx (1867) believed that market regulation is the evolution of society and
history. Commons (1931) developed Marx’s thought on market regulation by considering it
as a state of collective action that controls individual actions.
Hong (2005) defined market regulation as market norms, institutions, and
corresponding compliance. Regulation is generally accepted as consisting of authoritative
rules issued by the state but pluralized in important ways (Drahos 2017). New institutional
economics, as represented by Coase (2012) and North (1990), asserts that the formation and
development of market regulation depend on the spontaneous evolution of the market and
the intervention by the government supplying the applicable institutions. The government
has three possible roles in different stages of economic development: active involvement,
creating an “enabling environment” to support the development of the sector but not taking
any commercial role, and benign neglect where it does not directly support but neither
discriminate. Williamson (1996) and Powell (1990) further developed institutional
economics and explored the mechanism of the network in the formation of market
7
regulation. The literature clearly indicates that views on market regulation stem from the
market economy.
Tourism Market Regulation
TMR is an important criterion for measuring the condition of regional tourism development
(CNTA 2016). However, researchers have paid minimal attention to “regulatory theory”
(Randle and Hoye 2016). Studies on TMR have mostly focused on specific events and social
phenomena in the tourist market, such as assessing tourists’ reactions to an unethical
destination incident (Breitsohl and Garrod 2016). The phenomena of zero commission,
“ripping off” tourists, and unethical marketing practices, all of which disrupt TMR, have
gained more attention (Cavicchi and Santini 2011; Harris 2012; King et al. 2006; March
2008; Zhang, Heung, and Yan 2009). Zhang, Yan, and Li (2009) demystified the mechanism
of zero-commission tours and analyzed factors causing this negative event. Zero-based
activities have mainly been attributed to the government’s failure to properly regulate (Kim
and Gerber 2005).
According to the regulatory theory proposed by Baldwin, Cave, and Lodge (2011), the
primary reason for regulation in most countries is consumer protection. For instance, the EC
Package Travel Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3288) launched clauses for holidaymakers to
be compensated for any breach of contract by the tour operator. The European Parliament
and the Council of European Union amended Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive
2011/83/EU and enacted Directive (EU) 2015/2302 on package travel and linked travel
arrangements to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market and a high level
of consumer protection, particularly with regard to information requirements and the liability
of traders (The European Parliament and the Council of European Union 2015). For over 15
years, the Hong Kong Tourism Board has promoted accredited “Quality Tourism Services”
8
and resolved complaints from tourists to reinforce Hong Kong’s image as a destination
offering quality tourism services and products. In 2018 China amended its Tourism Law to
protect the lawful rights and interests of tourists and tourism operators as well as regulate the
order of the tourism market (Standing Committee of the National People's Congress 2018).
Laws that do not mention tourism services specifically but certainly encompass all service
offerings also exist, including the Constitution, civil and commercial laws such as the
Contract Law, the Company Law, economic laws, the Criminal Law, and so on. China has
issued a series of policy documents, including regulations that aim to rectify market order.
However, the existing government regulations do not cover the various services offered
in China, such as zero-commission tours and unethical marketing practices. Partial laws are
not adequate or implemented properly, such as the Tourism Law (Tang 2013). The main
reasons for the illegal and unethical behaviors in China’s tourism market are immaturity of
the market environment, noncredit transactions of tourism enterprises, and an improper
supervision and management system (Du 2012). The regulatory environment of a destination
is an important dimension of TMR, and improved regulation can typically reduce the extent
of unethical practices (March 2008). Another factor is the quality of tourism services, which
is the source of tourist dissatisfaction and even outrage (Crotts, Pan, and Raschid 2008),
such as tour guides “ripping off” tourists (Harris 2012; Ling 2014). As Mak, Wong, and
Chang (2011) pointed out, the factors influencing the service quality of tour guides include
unhealthy business practices of travel agencies, immaturity of the tourism market, unfair
exploitative measures, and the assurance mechanism. Institutionalizing the protection of
tourist rights should be an indispensable condition of the tourism development strategy
(Viktorovna, Shamilevna, and Yurievna 2014).
With every country facing the challenge of sustainable development, effective
regulatory plans are required (Drahos 2017). Prior to such plans, developing a tool that can
9
evaluate the state of TMR is necessary. Many tourism associations and governments have
their own codes of conduct to ensure members are protected by laws and regulations (Mak et
al. 2011). Regulation poses challenges for commercial tourism. The three models of
intervention in tourism development are central planning and control by the government,
self-regulation by the tourism industry (Randle and Hoye 2016), and public–private
partnerships taking charge of regulation (Huybers and Bennett 1997; Wilson, Nielsen, and
Buultjens 2009). Laws, regulations, and state intervention can regulate illegal activities and
law breaking. However, unethical but legal behaviors should be self-regulated by tourism
enterprises or organizations. For example, the Association of British Travel Agents have a
Code of Conduct and guidance on the application to self-regulate members for tourist
protection; the Code governs areas such as accurate advertising changes to bookings and
managing customer complaints (Association of British Travel Agents 2018). There are other
self-regulatory organizations, such as National Tour Association, Japan Association of Travel
Agents, and National Association of Travel Agents Singapore. China Tourism Association
and China Association of Travel Services began to self-regulate independently after
decoupling from the government in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Self-regulatory
organizations may well develop codes of conduct for tourists and practitioners, but they do
not make the laws of the land. Codes of conduct introduce ethical rather than legal parameters
and cannot punish unethical but legal business behavior. Nevertheless, they identify approved
behaviors and set up self-disciplines, which are effective supplements to legal regulation. Are
all the regulatory plans above effective? What is the condition of TMR in a destination? What
do tourists care most about when traveling? How can TMR be evaluated from the perspective
of tourists? Tourists’ role and viewpoints are fundamental to regulation making and
implementation. Thus, a set of standards that can assess the situation of TMR must be
systematically established.
10
Strategies regulating commercial tourism from a stakeholder perspective have been
found to be effective, which can increase the trust and support of stakeholders for
government regulation (Randle and Hoye 2016). Meanwhile, the government needs to
deliver the policy and planning framework. Hall (2012) stated that the government plays an
important role in shaping the regulatory and policy structures that influence medical tourism.
For instance, it can create an enabling environment by establishing supportive legislation or
regulations that help tourism develop (Jenkins 2012). Through quality standards in tourism,
health care, food, and housing, regulation can enhance tourists’ wellbeing, provide consumer
protection, and safeguard tourists’ security and rights (Drahos, 2017). A scale must therefore
be developed that considers illegal practices and unethical behaviors from the perspective of
tourists. Although studies have been conducted on the economics paradigm of market
regulation, these mainly concerned general commodity markets. TMR has unique
characteristics that distinguish it from general commodity regulation because of its service
and experiential nature. Therefore, additional focus on TMR is needed.
11
Methodology
This study followed an eight-step procedure for developing the measurement scale proposed
by Churchill (1979). The scale has been widely used in previous studies (e.g., DeVellis
2012; Ghosh and Mandal 2018; Hung and Petrick 2010; Yen, Tsaur, and Tsai 2018).
Churchill (1979) proposed that researchers should demonstrate flexibility when applying his
procedures (Zhang, Fan, Tse, and King 2016). In the present study, the eight steps involved
are as follows. (1) Specify the domain of the construct: TMR is defined by precisely
delineating which content is included and which is excluded (Churchill 1979). (2) Item
generation: This step involves the initial items extracted from literature review and
qualitative approach. Through literature review and content analysis of the in-depth
interviews and focus group data as well as documents of relevant laws and policies, items
were obtained across five dimensions. (3) Item purification and content validity: This study
reviewed wording and content validity through a panel of experts to refine the measurement
items. (4) Collect data: Data were collected through an online survey and offline fieldwork
to prevent the systematic research bias that may result from data collection through a single
channel. (5) Explore dimensionality: EFA was used to generate dimensions. (6) Collect data:
Second-round data were also collected through an online survey and offline fieldwork. (7)
Assess reliability: Reliability was assessed through coefficient alpha and composite
reliability. (8) Confirm dimensionality: CFA was conducted to test the validity of the scale
(Table 1).
Table 1 here
Data Collection
The qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group, while the
12
quantitative data were collected through an online panel survey covering 34 provincial-level
administrative regions in China and an offline field survey in cities of Tianjin, Beijing,
Shanghai, and Guangzhou. The entire data collection duration was September 2017 to
September 2018. Following the multi-stage design outlined above, this study explored the
conceptual construct of TMR, generated items, and then purified those items through face
and content validity tests. The purified items were then displayed in detail in scale
development. After these three steps, a questionnaire comprising 27 initial items was
confirmed (Appendix A). To obtain a reliable and valid measurement scale, two rounds of
data were collected before dimensionality was assessed through EFA and CFA.
In the questionnaire, tourists were asked to make an objective analysis of TMR on the
basis of their latest travel experience. For tourists, it is to evaluate both the outcomes and
process-based issues of TMR. Evaluating the outcomes of TMR is a difficult task for
tourists. A screening question (“Have you had a travel experience in the past 12 months?”)
was designed to identify eligible respondents (Wang, Hung, and Li 2018). Only tourists who
answered “Yes” were selected. The questionnaire comprised four parts: instructions to
respondents, travel details, measurement items, and demographic questions. In the first part,
the instructions explained the purpose of the survey and how to evaluate TMR. The second
part comprised two multiple-choice questions asking respondents to identify the following:
“The area where you traveled most recently” (possible answers included 34 provincial-level
administrative regions in China and abroad) and “The type of tourism enterprises that
recently provided you with products or services.” The purpose of these questions was to
guide respondents in completing the questionnaire basing on their latest travel experience.
The third part collected data through items evaluating TMR. The last part collected the
tourists’ demographic information, following the approach in CNTA (2017).
The online survey was conducted by a survey company named Wenjuanxing
13
(www.wjx.cn). The company was responsible for randomly distributing the questionnaire to
tourists online. The offline fieldwork survey was conducted in tourist attractions and hotels
with the assistance of travel agencies in China. Through sampling, a total of 500
questionnaires were distributed, 300 through the online survey and 200 through fieldwork
from December 2017 to April 2018. In total, 415 valid questionnaires were obtained. The
item ratio was 15.4:1, which is higher than the standard 10:1 recommended by Hair, Black,
Babin, and Anderson (2010), Kline (2005) and Nunnally (1994). The second round of data
for CFA was collected in the same way from May to September in 2018. Of the 400
questionnaires distributed, 319 valid questionnaires were returned.
Data Analysis
Qualitative research data were analyzed using content analysis following the approaches of
Holsti (1968) and Strauss (1987). According to the data from the quantitative questionnaire,
the first analytical step was data cleaning. This step was conducted by detecting invalid
questionnaires with missing items, obvious inconsistencies, and clear signs that a respondent
did not take the survey seriously, such as assigning the same value to all answers and
missing data. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, skewness, and
kurtosis, were used to test the normality of the data. Cronbach’s alpha and item-total
statistics were calculated to assess the reliability of the TMR scale. Data collected in the first
round (n = 415) were analyzed by EFA to explore the dimensionality of the construct. To
further validate the underlying structure and confirm the scale’s dimensionality, the second-
round data (n = 319) were analyzed using CFA with AMOS 24.0. The composite reliability
(CR), discriminant validity, nomological validity, and goodness-of-fit statistics of the model
were statistically evaluated.
14
Scale Development
Study 1: Conceptualization
Specify the Construct Domain of TMR
The first step for scale development is to specify the construct domain (Churchill 1979).
When exploring a concept that is not clearly defined, an inductive approach is recommended
(Hinkin et al. 1997). Therefore, a qualitative pre-study was undertaken to explore the
conceptualization and basic dimensions of TMR using primary and secondary data. The
secondary data included exploration in greater detail of the laws, policies and enforcement
capabilities to determine whether there are regulations to deal with what tourists cared most
about when traveling. From a policy research standpoint, this can ensure such findings from
best practices. As shown in Table 2, interviews were conducted with 20 practitioners from
September to October in 2017, comprising tourists, tourism experts, tourism enterprise
managers, and tourism administrators, to explore their different views on TMR to ensure
triangulation. The respondents were selected via snowball sampling. The research
demonstrates flexibility with interviews and focus groups so as to obtain in-depth data. The
researchers collected and continuously analyzed data until no new dimensions were
generated, which indicated information saturation (Small 2009).
The interviews mainly focused on three open questions. The first question asked about
the concept of TMR, including its dimensions and characteristics. The second question
concerned the items the interviewees cared most about when traveling. Firstly, it’s to
identify problems affecting consumers in the tourism sector; secondly, to identify the
regulatory response from the government through legislation; and third, to identify whether
tourists were aware of the legislation and what impact it had had on their tourist activities.
For instance, have they experienced any illegal activity or unethical practice? If so, how can
15
the industry legislate and regulate against such activities or practices? The third question
inquired about the interviewees’ opinions on the current situation of TMR at the destination,
including their views on current problems, the internal and external causes, and regulatory
response. Qualitative research data were analyzed following the approaches proposed by
Holsti (1968) and Strauss (1987).
Table 2 here
According to the scale development procedures proposed by Churchill (1979) and
Rossiter (2002), TMR is defined by eliciting attributes from tourists and stakeholders. To
ascertain the opinions of tourists and other stakeholders about TMR, the interview data,
categories, properties, and dimensions were analyzed. The main point mentioned by the
interviewees is that TMR in most countries serves to protect consumers. For instance,
consumers should have the right to recover compensation for breach of contract. The
following comments are enlightening:
People complain of being cheated by tour operators or other service providers. If
there was proper regulation of the market, then you wouldn’t have things like
lawsuits or complaints over a situation. If tourists are abused by the tour operator
or tour guides, there will be a mechanism to get redress against companies. (E01-
Male, University, China)
If we want to encourage the tourism industry, we’ve got to protect our customers,
the tourists. (A04-Male, TB, China)
Another point extracted from the interviews is that TMR shows whether or not various
market stakeholders comply with market rules. TMR requires legislations against illegal
16
activity and self-regulation against unethical practice. Relevant comments include the
following:
You see, that’s hugely unethical behavior, but apparently it’s not illegal. For
instance, the tour guide turned around and said, I didn’t force them, I just told
them there’s a place for the best souvenir market or supermarket. If you think of
the zero commission, it’s also not illegal but really unethical. It is essential to
overcome these civilian practices. (E04-Male, University, UK)
TMR referred to a ‘customer protection’ and is as relevant to travel agencies as to
hotels, transport, theme parks, and other attractions, covering all constituent parts of
the tourism sector. TMR aimed to impose obligations on all the tourism suppliers to
provide what they promise to do. (E04-Male, University, UK)
On the basis of qualitative analysis of the secondary and primary data, we define TMR
as follows: “Tourism market regulation is an evolving process and a state in which market
rules are complied with and adjusted by various market stakeholders in the context of an
institutional environment designed to protect tourists.” From the perspective of tourists, the
state of TMR depends on whether stakeholders can provide compliant tourism information
in the pre-travel period, sign a compliant contract, fulfill tourism contracts during the travel
period, and deal with tourists’ feedback in the post-travel period according to the law and
market rules. From tourists’ perspective, TMR involves processive steps obtained from the
tourists’ whole experience. Tourists’ travel experience depends on the services provided by
various market stakeholders.
17
TMR Dimensions from Tourists’ Perspective
According to the open coding, axial coding, and selective coding suggested by Strauss
(1987), TMR comprises five dimensions: regulatory oversight, truth in advertising, tourism
contract compliance, fulfilling tourism contracts, and travel feedback processing.
Regulatory oversight is the basis for the formation of the TMR. Formal institutions,
informal institutions, and implementation mechanisms constitute the institutional
environment (Coase 2012; Helmke and Levitsky 2004; North 1990). Schultz (1968) defined
an institution as a set of behavioral rules that define people’s behavior patterns and restrict
their mutual relations. From the perspective of tourists, regulatory oversight includes
whether market transactions are fair and whether regulatory authorities can ensure the
tourism market is regulated and tourists’ interests are protected (Yao and Liu 2019). The
government’s role is to create an enabling environment by passing legislation, including that
pertaining to tourism. The government and organizations should pass regulations promoting
the development of the tourism industry, including rebuilding regulations, access
regulations, and regulations governing tourist services. Relevant comments about this
dimension include the following:
Institutions are very important because you need to know, as a tourist, that if you
buy a product from one of these companies, it is guaranteed by the government or
an association. It should really be a situation where the tourists’ interests are
protected. Governments can legislate for that. (G01-Male, MCA, China)
In the UK, there are organizations such as Air Transport Operation License and
Association of British Travel Agents that take away licenses from members or
suspend membership regulations, which means tourists are unlikely to buy a tour
18
from that operator because there’s no protection. (E04-Male, University, UK)
Truth in advertising is an important dimension for tourists to evaluate TMR. Travels
can be risky because of the intangibility of tourism products and the unfamiliarity of tourists
with a new destination (Gitelson and Crompton 1983). Thus, tourists want to receive
extensive compliance information (Coromina and Camprubí 2016). They usually buy
products based on the information supplied by the tourism enterprises or the DMOs.
Therefore, it is important to provide true tourism information and marketing publicity that do
not violate laws and regulations (Yao and Hou 2017). From the interviewees’ perspective,
the factors that disrupt TMR are false advertising and misleading information. As tourism
transactions precede the purchased experience, previously publicized information is an
important dimension for tourists to choose a travel product and judge whether the tourism
market is regulated. One interviewee provided the following useful example:
Let’s assume you go to London for two weeks. You book this hotel because it
claimed to have a Chinese restaurant, to be located just five minutes’ walk from
the underground, and to provide a shuttle from the hotel to the airport. These three
things persuade you to book this hotel. When you get there, these things don’t
exist, and that is not information compliance. So, Truth in advertising simply
means the information that you provide to tourists is true. In the UK, we have
something called the Advertising Standards Authority. You have to be very careful
with the publicity brochure. (E04-Male, University, UK)
Tourism contract compliance is another important dimension for evaluating TMR. As
one informant mentioned: “The tourism contract is what we call a meeting of two minds.
19
One thing that determines what this means is what you promised me, and if I accept, then we
agree in the contract. If you buy a tour, then that is your contract with the tour operator or
whoever is selling it. The tour operator is responsible for the delivery of the tour” (C03-
Male, CA, China). Especially when booking through a travel agency, the signed travel
contract should clearly state the contained product and what must be self-financed. As one
respondent shared: “Although tourists do not always sign a formal contract when
purchasing a tourism product, such as when reserving a hotel room or visiting a tourism
attraction, the document provided by the hotel and signed by the tourist on arrival, which
specifies the accommodation level, room specifications, check-in time, departure time, etc.,
is also a kind of contract. Another kind of contract is the tourist tickets purchased from a
tourism attraction” (C01-Male, LCD of TA, China).
Fulfilling tourism contracts is important because various businesses in the tourism
market provide profit-making services according to the signed contracts. As one expert
argued, “If they offer you a holiday or a flight, they have to comply with what they say
they’re offering, as tourists are expecting what they’ve been promised will be delivered
according to the tourism contract” (E04-Male, University, UK). Therefore, whether a
tourism contract is fulfilled is primarily determined by the tourists’ expectations, according
to which they evaluate whether the tourism company performs its contractual obligations.
This evaluation includes whether the tourism products provided are consistent with the
signed contract, whether the travel services meet the service standards agreed on by both
parties, and whether the tourism enterprise or service staff does not deceive the tourists and
force them to consume.
Travel feedback processing refers to the tourism business entities and regulatory
authorities that deal with tourists’ problems. It is another important dimension of TMR, as
20
conveyed by the following comments: “Feedback, of course, might be normal if you buy
something. And if negative, people really know they’ve got a problem” (T06-M, PT, China).
“To me, the channel of complaints provided should be unobstructed and convenient. If the
relevant regulatory authorities or company can respond to my complaint within 24 hours, I
am very satisfied. If they just handle it, I am satisfied already” (T05-F, Student, China).
Thus, from the perspective of tourists, travel feedback processing concerns whether
regulators quickly respond to complaints, whether regulatory authorities and tourism
enterprises quickly resolve complaints according to the law, whether the tourism feedback
channel is unobstructed, and whether complaint-handling procedures are regulated.
Study 2: Item Generation
Churchill (1979) identified several ways to generate the initial items: literature search,
experience surveys, focus groups, critical incident techniques, and insight-stimulating
examples. In the present study, items were generated from the literature review and
qualitative research (Churchill 1979; Hinkin et al. 1997). An extensive literature review was
conducted to identify items relevant to TMR. This method yielded 11 items that were
subsequently adopted as items of our TMR measurement scale. (Table 3 presents the items
after subsequent revisions to improve content and face validity.) Through content analysis of
the interview data and detailed documents of the laws, policies and enforcement capabilities,
together with TMR dimensions from tourists’ perspective in the Conceptualization step,
additional 24 items were obtained across five dimensions. The literature review and
qualitative approach generated 35 items in total.
Study 3: Item Purification and Content Validity
Content validity refers to the appropriateness for and consistency of the items with the
21
measurement dimensions (Hair et al. 2010). After developing the initial items, the authors
reviewed the wording and content validity to remove measurement items that did not satisfy
the concept. As employed in previous scale-development research (Busser and Shulga 2018;
Fetscherin and Stephano 2016; Kim, Homun, Walker, and Drane 2015), the most basic
validity types are face and content validity (Chu and Murrmann 2006; Zikmund 1997). Ten
experts were invited to examine the items with the aim of improving the content validity,
specificity, clarity, conciseness, and readability of the scale (Busser and Shulga 2018;
DeVellis 2003; Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003). The experts comprised six
university teachers specializing in tourism markets and four Ph.D. candidates. Following
West and Crompton (2013), the experts were asked to complete content validity tasks to
derive the final scale items. For each initial item, they were asked to judge the item’s
relevance to TMR and whether it can measure each dimension (using a five-point Likert
scale from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). They were also asked to suggest
additional items that would improve the scale’s simplicity and content validity. Only items
with an average score of 3 or higher were retained (Fetscherin and Stephano 2016; Sharma
2009). For example, the item “tourism services personnel not asking for tips” scored below
3. Although mainland China prohibits tour guides and tour leaders from asking for tips from
tourists, under the Tourism Law (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress
2018), this item is not appropriate for other countries. Through several rounds of discussions
with the experts, 27 of the initial items were retained.
Next, a focus group of six Ph.D. students specializing in tourism management was
invited to revise the conciseness and readability of the items. The aim was to ensure that
tourists would be able to clearly understand the meaning of each measurement item when
completing the questionnaire. A pre-study scale was issued to a small sample to collect
suggestions from tourists and modify the wording of the items accordingly before a large-
22
scale investigation was conducted. In total, 61 questionnaires were distributed to tourists
visiting the tourist attractions of Tianjin ancient cultural street, the Five Avenues, Tianjin
Italian style street, Happy Valley, and water park as well as to tourists staying in hotels in
Tianjin city in November 2017. The tourist respondents were mainly asked whether they
could understand the items and if they had any suggestions to improve them. Several
adjustments were made based on the feedback from the students and tourists to ensure that
visitors would understand the meaning of each item. Finally, the validities of the 27 initial
items were confirmed. Table 3 presents the 27 items in the finalized questionnaire.
Table 3 here
Study 4: Scale Purification and Dimensionality
Sample Size and Analysis
The first round of data collection yielded 415 valid questionnaires from the 500 distributed.
The demographic profiles of the respondents are reported in Table 4. Females outnumbered
males (54.5% vs. 45.5%), and the largest age group was 18–25 years old (35.2%). Regarding
education, 56.9% had an undergraduate degree, and as regards occupation, the largest group
was students (32.8%), followed by enterprise staff (22.4%). The travel details report the
destination the tourists last traveled to and the type of tourism enterprise that most recently
provided them tourism products or services. Geographically, China’s 34 provincial-level
administrative areas are divided into seven major regions: Northeast China (3, representing
the number of provincial-level administrative areas in the region), North China (5), East
China (8), Central China (3), South China (5), Southwest China (5), and Northwest China
(5). As Table 4 shows, 34.0% of the respondents last traveled to North China.
Table 4 here
23
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The items were generated through a qualitative approach and literature review. Hence, EFA
was conducted to purify the items representing the conceptualized domain of the construct
and identify the latent factor structure. Before EFA was performed, descriptive statistics,
homogeneity analysis, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (BTS)
were used to determine the appropriateness of the 415 valid first-round questionnaires. First,
descriptive statistics were used to test the sufficiency of discrimination in the scale. The
standard deviation was above 1 for all 27 items, indicating good discrimination (Appendix
C). The univariate skewness and kurtosis values all ranged near –1 to +1, indicating
normality and thus appropriateness for factor analysis (Hair et al. 2010; Kline 2005).
Second, homogeneity analysis was conducted using reliability statistics and item-total
statistics. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.946, higher than the recommended value of 0.7
(Nunnally 1994). Corrected item-total correlations all exceeded 0.40 (Thompson 2004), and
the index “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” did not increase (Field 2013). These findings
all demonstrated the reliability and internal consistency of the scale. Third, the KMO index
was 0.940, which exceeded the threshold of 0.50 (Kaiser 1974). Bartlett’s index (approx.
chi-square = 7252.495, df = 351, p < 0.000) was significant. These two findings indicated
that the sample had sufficient correlations to conduct factor analysis.
The principal component analysis with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser’s criterion)
and maximum variable rotation was used in the EFA process to explore dimensionality. The
aim was to specify the observed items and the assumed underlying factors. Five dimensions
with eigenvalues above 1 were identified which explained 66.78% of the total variance.
Items with a factor loading below 0.50, high cross loading on another factor (> 0.5), and low
commonalities (< 0.30) were eliminated (Hair et al. 2010). Furthermore, with the use of the
index “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted,” items were removed if deleting them raised the
24
reliability coefficient of their dimension (Field 2013). As recommended by prior research
(Kim et al. 2015; Kline 2005; Raubenheimer 2004), at least three items were retained for
each dimension. The application of these criteria omitted 4 items. EFA was again conducted
on the remaining 23 items. Table 5 presents the results. The KMO was 0.925 and the BTS
(2 = 5953.20, p < 0.000) was significant. Rotation converged in six iterations, and the 23
items were classified into five factors that explained 68.93% of the total variance.
Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.781 to 0.902 and was above the cut-off value of 0.70
(Nunnally 1994). All the indicators showed that the explored dimensions had internal
consistency reliability. On the basis of the literature review and the results of the inductive
approach, the five dimensions were labeled as follows: regulatory oversight (RO, five items,
α = .894); fulfilling tourism contract (FTC, five items, α = .883); travel feedback processing
(TFP, five items, α = .902); tourism contract compliance (TCC, four items, α = .781); and
truth in advertising (TIA, four items, α = .801).
Table 5 here
Study 5: Scale Validation
Sample Size and Analysis
CFA was conducted to further validate the underlying structure and confirm the
dimensionality of the scale. Factor analysis can be approached in two ways. One is to
randomly split a data sample into two convenience sub-samples for EFA and CFA, as
demonstrated in previous scale-development research (e.g., Busser and Shulga 2018; Chen,
Bao, and Huang 2014; Wang, Hung, and Li 2018). The other, which Churchill (1979)
recommended, is to explore dimensionality with the first round of data and then collect and
analyze a new data sample with the purified questionnaire. As a means of assessing
reliability and construct validity, this second approach has been widely used to develop
25
improved measures (e.g., Chu and Murrmann 2006; Fetscherin and Stephano 2016; Liu,
Wang, Huang, and Chen 2017; Wen et al. 2018). The current study followed Churchill’s
recommendation, which yielded 319 valid questionnaires from the 400 distributed
(Appendix B). The item ratio was 13.9:1, higher than the standard 10:1 (Hair et al. 2010;
Kline 2005; Nunnally 1994).
The demographic profiles and most-recent travel details of the respondents are shown
in Table 4. Females slightly outnumbered males (52.66% vs. 47.34%, respectively). The
largest age group was 26–30 years old (26.02%), and the majority of participants had an
undergraduate degree (55.80%). Regarding occupation, the largest group was students
(21.94%), followed by enterprise staff (20.38%). The destinations the tourists last traveled to
were distributed among all 34 provincial-level administrative areas and abroad. The standard
deviation was above 1 for all 23 items. The univariate skewness and kurtosis values ranged
from –1 to +1, except the item “the travel contract is signed with the consent of both parties”
(Appendix D), which did not range outside –3 to +3. The results confirmed the
appropriateness of factor analysis (Hair et al. 2010; Kline 2005).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The 319 valid responses were analyzed with CFA using AMOS 24.0 to assess the model’s
reliability and validity. Specifically, the analysis aimed to establish whether TMR can be
effectively measured through regulatory oversight, truth in advertising, tourism contract
compliance, fulfilling tourism contracts, and travel feedback processing. The model was
statistically evaluated by several goodness-of-fit statistics, including chi-squared to degrees
of freedom ratio (²/df), comparison fit index (CFI > 0.90), incremental fit index
(IFI > 0.90), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI > 0.90), and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA < 0.08) (Busser and Shulga 2018; Hair et al. 2010). The results were as follows:
26
2 = 592.932, df = 220, 2/df = 2.695, CFI = 0.908, IFI = 0.909, TLI = 0.894, and
RMSEA = 0.073. The modification indices and covariances reveal that 3 items were omitted
because of high error and M.I. with other items: “travel services meet service standards
agreed by both parties,” “tourism complaints handling procedures are regulated,” and “the
travel contract is signed with the consent of both parties.” The goodness-of-fit statistics were
as follows: 2 = 352.750, df = 160 2/df = 2.205, CFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.932,
and RMSEA = 0.062. These findings indicate that the five-factor structural model has better
fitting degree than the model with 20 items.
Reliability refers to the degree of consistency of the results when the same object is
repeatedly measured (Hair et al. 2010). Cronbach’s alpha and CR were used to test the
scale’s internal consistency. CR concerns the internal consistency of a composite factor
comprising more than one item (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Cronbach’s alpha for each of the
five dimensions ranged between 0.738 and 0.887, while the CR of the five latent variables
was between 0.748 and 0.898 (Table 6), therefore exceeding the cut-off value of 0.6
(Bagozzi and Yi 1988).
Convergent validity was evaluated by calculating the factor loadings of all the items
(FL > 0.5) (Hair et al. 2010) and the average variance extracted (AVE > 0.50) (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). Table 6 shows that all items had significant loadings between 0.587 and
0.919, thus exceeding the criterion of 0.5. The AVE of the five dimensions ranged between
0.496 and 0.692, higher than the 0.45 threshold of a newly development scale recommended
by Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma (2003). Overall, the scale is considered to have good
convergent validity between the constructs.
Table 6 here
Discriminant validity refers to the low correlation or significant difference between the
potential dimension and the other dimensions (Hair et al. 2010). If the square root of the
27
AVE value is higher than the correlation coefficient among the constructs, then good
discriminant validity is indicated (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Kline (2005) also
recommended that the correlation coefficient between constructs should not exceed 0.85. As
shown in Table 7, the differences in the chi-squared values among the various dimensions all
reach a significant level. The correlation coefficients of the five latent variables range from
0.214 to 0.670, less than the square root of the AVE value of the five dimensions. The
correlations between the constructs were all below 0.85. Thus, all the indicators showed
good discriminant validity. Furthermore, the normalized regression coefficients for the five
factors were significant at p < 0.001, indicating that the five factors can effectively measure
TMR with nomological validity.
Table 7 here
28
Discussion and Implications
Despite the rapid growth of China’s tourism market and the increasing importance of TMR
to protect tourists, great ambiguity still surrounds the conceptualization of TMR and how it
should be measured. This study developed a set of standards to evaluate TMR to protect the
rights of tourists and preserve the ethical integrity of the industry. The generated scale covers
illegal practices and unethical behaviors, both of which impact the experience and overall
satisfaction of tourists. This study developed a measurement scale to monitor these two parts.
The theoretical implications are summarized as follows. First, this study provides a
theoretical framework for TMR, which is a multi-dimensional concept. Second, from the
perspective of tourists, this study delineates the conceptual domain of TMR by identifying
five dimensions. Regulatory oversight is the most important dimension because the
institutional environment is the foundation for reflecting on whether the tourism market is
regulated (Coase 2012; North 1990; Williamson 1996). The following dimension tourists
care the most about is fulfilling tourism contracts, for if every company can comply with the
contract to deliver products and services, then the tourism market will be well regulated. The
other dimensions are travel feedback processing, tourism contract compliance, and truth in
advertising. In the pre-travel period, truth in advertising is an important dimension because
tourists always acquire and select information at different stages of their decision-making
before starting a journey (Coromina and Camprubí 2016; Fodness and Murray 1999;
Gitelson and Crompton 1983). As Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) state, “a tourist is expected
to be highly involved in the information search for tourism service purchases compared to
many other product or service purchases, because of unfamiliarity and high-perceived risk.”
Therefore, tourism information should be transparent, true, and should not violate laws or
regulations. The other dimensions are tourism contract compliance and fulfilling tourism
contracts in the travel period and travel feedback processing in the post-travel period. From
29
the perspective of tourists, these dimensions of TMR are sequential. Third, the present study
is the first attempt to develop a measurement scale of TMR from the perspective of tourists.
Tourists tend to have the best insight on the extent to which a tourism market is regulated,
and they can evaluate TMR according to their travel experiences. Thus, this study provides a
new research perspective and a reliable measurement tool for follow-up empirical research
and enactment of legislation to address deficiencies in laws affecting tourism activity. It also
provides theoretical foundations for the in-depth study of TMR in China and other
destinations.
The conceptualization of TMR and the TMR measurement scale also have valuable
practical implications. A disordered tourism market has become a serious obstacle to the
healthy development of the tourism industry, especially in developing countries such as
China. This problem necessitates research into the concept of TMR and its sub-components.
The multi-dimensional TMR scale proposed herein is a useful tool for tourists, DMOs, and
other stakeholders to measure and govern TMR. First, for tourists, the scale can provide
information on TMR when they select and compare tourism products according to the
standard of the items. The scale can be used to assess the perceived order of the tourism
market before, during, and after traveling. For tour operators or other tourism enterprises,
soliciting such information from tourists can help them identify what improvements are
needed. They can use the scale in their training menu, such as employee training rules and
employee performance appraisal, among other aspects. They can self-regulate and cultivate
informal institutions to ensure product quality and further improve market competitiveness.
For tourism administration and DMOs, soliciting such information from tourists can help
them measure the status of TMR in destinations within their jurisdiction, enabling them to
identify what regulations are needed to regulate the market. Second, the conceptualization
identifies that the status of institutions and the compliance with the rules of market
30
stakeholders are key criteria for determining the status of TMR. Therefore, these standards
should be used to measure and govern TMR. Third, tourism administrations and DMOs can
consider putting the items into laws and regulations. For example, regarding regulatory
oversight, as the immaturity of the market environment is a main reason for the lack of
regulation in China’s tourism market (Du 2012), tourism administrations and DMOs should
cooperate to perfect the formal institutions, informal institutions, and implementation
mechanisms for creating a fair institutional environment. The government needs to upgrade
the relevant laws and regulations in the tourism industry and provide more detailed clauses
for improved implementation of the laws.
31
Conclusion and Limitations
This study refined the domain of TMR and developed a measurement scale of TMR from the
perspective of tourists by using a mixed-method and multi-step procedure. Qualitative
research, including interviews and focus groups, was conducted to provide a clear definition
of TMR and its sub-components. Face and content validity tests were performed to purify
the items, thereby finalizing the 27 items for the questionnaire. Through the quantitative
approach, EFA and CFA were used with two rounds of data, and 20 items across five
dimensions were verified with satisfactory reliability and validity. The extracted dimensions
of TMR from the perspective of tourists included regulatory oversight, truth in advertising,
tourism contract compliance, fulfilling tourism contract, and travel feedback processing.
Although this research provides timely theoretical contributions for TMR and practical
implications for the tourism market, it has several limitations. First, even with all the data
collected in China, cross-cultural reliability and validity (Knight 1997) were not tested in this
study (Liu et al. 2017). To further validate the scale, future research could replicate the
current study using data from other cultural contexts. With a specific focus on China, it is our
intention in follow-up research to examine and compare the Chinese position with selected
tourist-receiving countries and identify gaps in tourism consumer protection regulations and
recommend where further action may be needed to improve coverage in China. Second, this
study only explores measurements of TMR from the perspective of tourists. Future research
can further develop the measurement scale by considering the perspectives of other
stakeholders (e.g., tourism enterprises, DMOs, etc.), thereby enriching TMR research. Third,
this study develops the items from the perspective of tourists by following Hayek’s Sensory
Order, according to which market regulation can be perceived by consumers. We
acknowledge that some measurement items may be difficult for tourists to make an informed
response, for example, “the laws and regulations protecting tourists are perfect” and “the
32
institutions regulating the tourism market are sound”. Future research can be considered to
further refine the survey instruments. Additionally, the influence of TMR on tourists’
behavior and psychological outcomes, including first-time travel intention, willingness to
travel again, and destination loyalty, can be investigated. Another study could examine on a
compare and contrast basis China’s existing tourism market regulations with other countries
to discern discrepancies in coverage and recommend further improvements.
33
References
Association of British Travel Agents. 2018. “Who we are.” https://www.abta.com/ (accessed
September 1, 2017).
Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. 1988. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models.” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1): 74–94.
Baldwin, R., M. Cave, and M. Lodge. 2011. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy,
and Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Breitsohl, J., and B. Garrod. 2016. “Assessing Tourists’ Cognitive, Emotional and
Behavioural Reactions to an Unethical Destination Incident.” Tourism Management 54:
209–220.
Busser, J. A., and L. V. Shulga. 2018. “Co-created Value: Multidimensional Scale and
Nomological Network.” Tourism Management 65: 69–86.
Cavicchi, A., and C. Santini. 2011. “Brunellopoli: A Wine Scandal under the Tuscan Sun.”
Tourism Review International 15 (3): 253–267.
Chen, G., J. Bao, and S. Huang. 2014. “Developing a Scale to Measure Backpackers’
Personal Development.” Journal of Travel Research 53 (4): 522–536.
China National Tourism Administration. 2017. The Yearbook of China Tourism Statistics
2016. Beijing: China Travel and Tourism Press.
China National Tourism Administration. 2016. The Yearbook of China Tourism Statistic
2015. Beijing: China Travel and Tourism Press.
Chu, K. H., and S. K. Murrmann. 2006. “Development and Validation of the Hospitality
Emotional Labor Scale.” Tourism Management 27 (6): 1181–1191.
Churchill, G. A. 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1): 64–73.
Coase, R. H. 2012. The Firm, the Market and the Law, University of Chicago Press. First
34
published in 1937.
Commons, J. R. 1931. “Institutional Economics.” The American Economic Review 21 (4):
648–657.
Coromina, L., and R. Camprubí. 2016. “Analysis of Tourism Information Sources Using a
Mokken Scale Perspective.” Tourism Management 56: 75–84.
Crotts, J. C., B. Pan, and A. E. Raschid. 2008. “A Survey Method for Identifying Key Drivers
of Guest Delight.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20
(4): 462–470.
DeVellis, R. F. 2012. Scale Development: Theory and Applications (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Drahos, P. 2017. Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications. ANU Press.
Du, J. 2012. “The Main Problems, Causes and Countermeasures of Current Tourism Market.”
Reference Theory (9): 14–17.
Field, A. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). London: SAGE.
Fetscherin, M., and R. M. Stephano. 2016. “The Medical Tourism Index: Scale Development
and Validation.” Tourism Management 52: 539–556.
Fodness, D., and B. Murray. 1999. “A Model of Tourist Information Search Behavior.”
Journal of Travel Research 37 (3): 220–230.
Fornell, C., and D. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Errors.” Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1): 39–50.
Frechtling, D C. 1999. “The Tourism Satellite Account: Foundations, Progress and Issues.”
Tourism Management 20: 163–170.
Frechtling, D C. 2010. “The Tourism Satellite Account: A Primer.” Annals of Tourism
Research 37(1): 136–153.
35
Fu, L. 2010. “On the Legal Solution for the Problem of ‘Free-of-charge or Negative-charge
tours’ Practice.” Tourism Tribune 25 (9): 71–76.
Gefen, D., E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub. 2003. “Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An
Integrated Model.” MIS Quarterly 27 (1): 51–90.
Ghosh, T., and S. Mandal. 2018. “Medical Tourism Experience: Conceptualization, Scale
Development, and Validation.” Journal of Travel Research 1–14.
Gitelson, R. J., and J. L. Crompton. 1983. "The Planning Horizons and Sources of
Information Used by Pleasure Vacationers." Journal of Travel Research 21 (3): 2–7.
Grant, D. 1996. "The Package Travel Regulations 1992." Tourism Management 17 (5): 319–
321.
Hall, C.M. 2012. Medical Tourism: The Ethics, Regulation, and Marketing of Health
Mobility, Routledge, London.
Hair, J. F., W.C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Harris, L. C. 2012. “'Ripping Off' Tourists: An Empirical Evaluation of Tourists’ Perceptions
and Service Worker (Mis)Behavior.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2): 1070–1093.
Hayek, F. A. 1952. The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical
Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayek, F. A. 1967. Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Helmke, G., and S. Levitsky. 2004. “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A
Research Agenda.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (4): 725–740.
Hinkin, T., B. Tracey, and C. Enz. 1997. “Scale Construction: Developing and Reliable and
Valid Measurement Instruments.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 21 (1):
100–120.
36
Holsti, O. 1968. Content Analysis in Lindzey, G. and Aaronson (Eds.) The Handbook of
Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Hong, Y. 2005. “Market Order Construction in the Economic Transformation Stage.”
Economic Theory and Economic Management (1): 5–11.
Hung, K., and J. F. Petrick. 2010. “Developing a Measurement Scale for Constraints to
Cruising.” Annals of Tourism Research 37(1): 206–228.
Huybers, T., and J. Bennett. 1997. “The Significance of the Environment and its Regulation
to Australia's Tourism Industry.” Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 4
(1): 40–55.
Jenkins, C. L. 2012. “Tourism and Political Change.” Tourism Management 33 (3): 721–722.
Jia, Y., J. He, and F. Cui. 2006. “An Analysis of Interactions Between Zero Inclusive-fee and
China’s Outbound Tourism.” Tourism Tribune 21 (1): 69–73.
Kaiser, H. F. 1974. “An Index of Factorial Simplicity.” Psychometrika 39 (1): 31–36.
Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Kim, J., and B. Gerber. 2005. “Bureaucratic Leverage over Policy Choice: Explaining the
Dynamics of State-level Reforms in Telecommunications Regulation.” The Policy
Studies Journal 33 (4): 613–33.
Kim, W., H. M. Jun, M. Walker, and D. Drane. 2015. “Evaluating the Perceived Social
Impacts of Hosting Large-scale Sport Tourism Events: Scale Development and
Validation.” Tourism Management 48: 21–32.
King, B., L. Dwyer, and B. Prideaux. 2006. “An Evaluation of Unethical Business Practices
in Australia's China Inbound Tourism Market.” International Journal of Tourism
Research, 8 (2): 127–142.
37
Knight, G. A. 1997. “Cross-cultural Reliability and Validity of a Scale to Measure Firm
Entrepreneurial Orientation.” Journal of Business Venturing 12 (3): 213–225.
Kohl, J. P., and P. S. Greenlaw. 1983. “Government Regulation and Hospitality
Management.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 2 (1): 25–29.
Legislative Council of Hong Kong SAR. 2018. “Travel Industry Ordinance (No.37 of
2018).” https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20182249/es12018224937.pdf (accessed
December 21, 2018).
Li, J., L. Xie, and X. Guan. 2016. “Scale Development and Validation of Tourism Public
Service Quality.” Tourism Tribune 31 (11): 117–127.
Ling, C. 2014. “A Study on Reasons and Solutions to Tour Guides’ Ripping Off Tourist.”
American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 4 (2): 90–93.
Liu, C. R., Y. C. Wang, W. S. Huang, and S. P. Chen. 2017. “Destination Fascination:
Conceptualization and Scale Development.” Tourism Management 63: 255–267.
Lv, X., H. Xu, and W. Qiu. 2014. “Construction and Validity Test of China Tourism
Consumer Power Scale.” Economic Management (7): 111–119.
Mak, A. H. N., K. K. F. Wong, and R. C. Y. Chang. 2011. “Critical Issues Affecting the
Service Quality and Professionalism of the Tour Guides in Hong Kong and Macau.”
Tourism Management 32 (6): 1442–1452.
Marx, K. 1867. Capital. First published in German in 1867, English edition first published in
1887, translated by Samuel Moore and Edward, Aveling-edited by Fredrick Engels,
Moscow, USSR: Progress Publishers.
March, R. 2008. “Towards a Conceptualization of Unethical Marketing Practices in Tourism:
A Case-study of Australia's Inbound Chinese Travel Market.” Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 24 (4): 285–296.
38
Mcknight, D. H., and N. L. Chervany. 2001. “What Trust Means in E-commerce Customer
Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology.” International Journal of
Electronic Commerce 6 (2): 35–59.
Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the people's Republic of China. 2019. “Basic situation of
Tourism Market in 2018.”
http://zwgk.mct.gov.cn/auto255/201902/t20190212_837271.html?keywords= (accessed
February 12, 2019).
Netemeyer, R. G., W. O. Bearden, and S. Sharma. 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and
Applications. London, UK: Sage.
North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunnally, J. C. 1994. Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Powell, W. W. 1990. “Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.”
Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295–336.
Qu, R., C. Ennew, and M. T. Sinclair. 2005. “The Impact of Regulation and Ownership
Structure on Market Orientation in the Tourism Industry in China.” Tourism
Management 26 (6): 939–950.
Randle, E. J., and R. Hoye. 2016. “Stakeholder Perception of Regulating Commercial
Tourism in Victorian National Parks, Australia.” Tourism Management 54: 138–149.
Ren, L., and H. Qiu. 2018. “Developing a Measurement Scale for Cultural Values and Norms
of Chinese Mass Travelers.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 1–8.
Research Group on the Evaluation of Market regulation. 1998. “Assessment System of
Market Order in Modern China.” Teaching and Research (1): 21–24.
Riefler, P., A. Diamantopoulos, and J. Siguaw. 2012. “Cosmopolitan Consumers as a Target
Group for Segmentation.” Journal of International Business Studies 43 (3): 285–305.
39
Rossiter, J. R. 2002. “The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4): 305–335.
March, R. 2008. “Towards a Conceptualization of Unethical Marketing Practices in Tourism:
A Case‐study of Australia’s Inbound Chinese Travel Market.” Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 24 (4): 285–296.
Schultz, T. W. 1968. “Institutions and the Rising Economic Value of Man.” American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 50 (5): 1113–1122.
Sharma, P. 2009. “Measuring Personal Cultural Orientations: Scale Development and
Validation.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38 (6): 787–806.
Small, M. L. 2009. “`How Many Cases do I Need?' On Science and the Logic of Case
Selection in Field-based Research.” Ethnography 10 (1): 5–38.
Smeral, E. 2006. “Tourism Satellite Accounts: A Critical Assessment.” Journal of Travel
Research 45 (1): 92–98.
Smith, A. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. First
published in 1776, edited by Adam Smith in 1778, 1784, 1786, 1789.
Sirakaya, E., and A. G. Woodside. 2005. “Building and Testing Theories of Decision
Making by Travellers.” Tourism Management 26 (6): 815–832.
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. 1997. “Price Law.”
http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/gongbao/1997-12/29/content_1480187.htm (accessed June
10, 2017).
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. 1999. “Contract Law.”
http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/flsyywd/minshang/node_2196.htm (accessed June 10,
2017).
40
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. 2013. “Consumer Protection Law.”
http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2013-10/26/content_1811773.htm (accessed June
10, 2017).
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. 2018. “Advertising Law.”
http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2018-11/05/content_2065663.htm (accessed
November 5, 2018).
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. 2018. “Tourism Law.”
http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2018-11/05/content_2065666.htm (accessed
November 5, 2018).
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. 2019. “Law Against Unfair
Competition.” http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2019-05/07/content_2086834.htm
(accessed May 7, 2019).
Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tang, J. 2013. “The Limitation and Perfection of the Tourism Service Contract Provisions in
the Tourism Law.” Tourism Tribune 28 (9): 22–23.
The European Parliament and the Council of European Union. 2015. “Directive (EU)
2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council.” Official Journal of the
European Union 1–33.
The People's Daily. 2019. “Tourism Complaints in 2018.”
http://travel.people.com.cn/n1/2019/0222/c41570-30897023.html (accessed February
22, 2019).
Thomas, R., and H. Thomas. 1992. “State Regulation and the Hospitality Industry: The Case
of Hot Food Take-aways.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 11 (3):
197–211.
41
Thompson, B. 2004. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts
and Applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Viktorovna, R. M., E. S. Vasilievna, T. E. Shamilevna, and L. E. Yurievna. 2014.
“Institutionalization of Tourist Rights Protection as an Indispensable Condition of the
Tourism Development Strategy.” World Applied Sciences Journal 193–195.
Wang, G. 1997. Market Order Theory. Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Press.
Wang, S., K. Hung, and M. Li. (2018). “Development of Measurement Scale for Functional
Congruity in Guest Houses.” Tourism Management 68: 23–31.
Wei, M., and J. Yang. 2011. “Irrational Tourism Consumption of Zero Inclusive-fee and
Negative Inclusive-fee: Reflection and Measurements.” Energy Procedia 5: 1416–1424.
West, S. T., J. L. Crompton. 2013. “Who Ought to Receive What? An Instrument to Assess a
Community’s Preferred Strategy for Allocating Leisure Service Resources.” World
Leisure Journal 55 (1): 38–57.
Williamson, O. E. 1996. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Social
Science Electronic Publishing 86 (343): 619.
Wilson, E., N. Nielsen, and J. Buultjens. 2009. “From Lessees to Partners: Exploring
Tourism Publice Private Partnerships within the New South Wales National Parks and
Wildlife Service.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (2): 269–285.
Yao, Y., P. Hou. 2018. “Study on Tourism Enterprise Integrity Evaluation System: A
Tourists’ Perspective.” Tourism Tribune 32 (12): 80–88.
Yao, Y., Y. Liu. 2019. “The Concept of Tourism Market Order and its Operational
Mechanism: An Exploratory Research Based on Grounded Theory.” Tourism Tribune
1–15.
Yen, C. H., S. H. Tsaur, and C. H. Tsai. 2018. “Tour Leaders’ Job Crafting: Scale
Development.” Tourism Management 69: 52–61.
42
Zhang, H. Q., D. X. F. Fan, T. S. M. Tse, and B. King. 2016. “Creating a Scale for Assessing
Socially Sustainable Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1–18.
Zhang, H. Q., V. C. S. Heung, and Y. Q. Yan. 2009. “Play or not to Play—An Analysis of the
Mechanism of the Zero-commission Chinese Outbound Tours Through a Game Theory
Approach.” Tourism Management 30 (3): 366–371.
Zhang, H. Q., Y. Q. Yan, and Y. Li. 2009. “Understanding the Mechanism Behind the Zero-
Commission Chinese Outbound Package Tours.” International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 21 (6): 734–751.
Zikmund, W. G. 1997. Business Research Methods. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
43
Table 1. Procedure for Developing the Measurement Instrument
Steps in the
process Detailed Steps Techniques
Study 1 (1) Specify the domain of the
construct
Literature search
In-depth interviews, focus group
Study 2 (2) Item generation Literature search
In-depth interviews, focus group
Study 3 (3) Item purification and content
validity
Panel of experts, pilot study (content validity, n
= 61)
Study 4 (4) Collect data Website and fieldwork (n = 415)
(5) Explore dimensionality Coefficient alpha
EFA
Study 5 (6) Collect data Website and fieldwork (n = 319)
(7) Assess reliability
(8) Confirm dimensionality
Coefficient alpha, CFA, Composite reliability
Convergent validity
Discriminant validity
Nomological validity
Sources: Churchill (1979); Ren and Qiu (2018); Zhang, Fan, Tse, and King (2016).
Note: The pilot study (n = 61) was conducted with tourists visiting tourist attractions and staying in hotels in
Tianjin city. Steps 4 and 6 collected two rounds of data through an online panel survey covering 34 provincial-
level administrative regions in China and an offline field survey in a typical city of Tianjin, Beijing, Shanghai,
and Guangzhou.
Table 2. Interviewee Profiles
Code name
Type Gender Age Education Occupation Geographical location
Duration (min)
Interview type
T01 Tourist Male 34 Ph.D. College teacher Shandong province
100 Focus group 1
T02 Male 30 Ph.D. Ph.D. student Henan province
100 Focus group 1
T03 Male 28 Ph.D. Ph.D. student Neimenggu province
100 Focus group 1
T04 Female 31 Ph.D. College teacher Henan province
100 Focus group 1
T05 Female 25 Ph.D. Ph.D. student Jiangxi province
100 Focus group 1
T06 Female 36 Bachelor Professional traveler
Sichuan province
42 Interview
E01 Tourism expert
Male 53 Ph.D. Professor Tianjin city 28 Interview
E02 Female 56 Ph.D. Professor Tianjin city 74 Interview
E03 Male 31 Ph.D. Lecturer Guizhou province
55 Interview
E04 Male 76 Ph.D. Professor Glasgow, UK 88 Interview
C01 Tourism enterprise
Male 39 Master Manager of LCD in TA
Beijing city 67 Interview
C02 Female 45 Bachelor Tourism entrepreneur
Guangdong province
75 Interview
C03 Male 60 Bachelor Manager of TA Tianjin city 112 Interview
A01 Tourism administration
Male 55 Master Manager of MCT Beijing city 86 Interview
A02 Male 53 Bachelor Manager of TB Tianjin city 118 Focus group 2
A03 Male 41 Master Manager of TB Tianjin city 118 Focus group 2
A04 Male 45 Master Manager of TB Jiangsu province
125 Focus group 3
A05 Female 30 Bachelor Staff of TB Jiangsu province
125 Focus group 3
A06 Female 37 Bachelor Manager of TB Jiangsu province
125 Focus group 3
A07 Male 41 Bachelor Manager of TB Jiangsu province
125 Focus group 3
Note: LCD: legal and compliance department; TA: travel agency; MCT: Ministry of Culture and Tourism; TB:
Tourism Bureau.
44
Table 3. Initial Constructs and Items Evaluating Tourism Market Regulation from the Perspective of Tourists
Dimension Items Relevant literature
Truth in advertising
1. Tourism information is transparent. CAI
2. Tourism information is true. CAI, Yao and Hou (2017), Article 32, 48 of Tourism Law, Article 20 of Consumer Protection Law, Article of Advertising Law
3. There is no misleading tourism information. CAI, Article 32, 97 of Tourism Law, Article 20 of Consumer Protection Law, Article 5, 9, 21, 24 of Law Against Unfair Competition
4. Tourism information does not violate laws and regulations.
Yao and Hou (2017)
Tourism contract compliance
5. The travel contract is signed with the consent of both parties.
CAI, Article 14 of Contract Law
6. The travel contract clauses are specific. CAI, Article 14 of Contract Law
7. The travel contract clearly states the included product.
CAI, Article 58 of Tourism Law, Article 12 of Contract Law, Article 26 of Consumer Protection Law
8. The travel contract clearly states the self-financed items.
CAI, Article 12 of Contract Law, Article 26 of Consumer Protection Law
9. Tourism products are clearly priced. CAI, Article 12 of Contract Law, Article 26 of Consumer Protection Law, Article 13, 42 of Price Law
10. There are no overruling clauses that infringe on tourists’ interests.
CAI, Article 39, 40, 41 of Contract Law
Fulfilling tourism contract
11. Tourism enterprises perform their obligations according to the signed contract.
CAI, Article 49, 69, 100 of Tourism Law, Article 8, 60, 107, 108, 113 of Contract Law, Article 16 of Consumer Protection Law
12. The tourism products provided are consistent with the signed contract.
CAI, Article 9 of Tourism Law, Article 111, 148, 153, 154, 155 of Contract Law, Article 23, 24 of Consumer Protection Law
13. Travel services meet service standards agreed on by both parties.
CAI, Article 9, 58 of Tourism Law, Article 111, 148, 153, 154, 155 of Contract Law, Article 8, 10, 23, 24 of Consumer Protection Law
14. Tourism enterprises or service staff does not arbitrarily suspend service activities.
CAI, Article 41, 69, 100 of Tourism Law, Article 8 of Contract Law
15. Tourism enterprises or service staff does not force tourists to consume.
CAI, Article 9, 41 of Tourism Law, Article 10, 16 of Consumer Protection Law
16. Tourism enterprises or service staff does not deceive tourists.
CAI, Article 35, 41, 98 of Tourism Law, Article 52, 54, 113 of Contract Law
Travel feedback processing
17. Tourism feedback channel is unobstructed. CAI, Li (2016), Article 91 of Tourism Law 18. Tourism complaint-handling procedures are regulated.
CAI, Li (2016); Drahos (2017)
19. Tourism enterprises give positive feedback on issues I raise.
CAI, Lv (2014)
20. Tourism enterprises quickly resolve my complaints according to the law.
CAI, Li (2016)
21. Regulatory authorities deal with my complaints quickly.
CAI, Li (2016), Article 88, 89 of Tourism Law, Article 35 of Consumer Protection Law
22. Regulatory authorities quickly resolved my complaints according to the law.
CAI, Li (2016); Drahos (2017)
Regulatory oversight
23. The market transaction in tourism industry is fair.
CAI
24. The laws and regulations protecting tourists are perfect.
CAI
25. The institutions regulating the tourism market are sound.
Gefen (2003)
26. Regulatory authorities ensure the tourism market is regulated.
CAI
27. Regulatory authorities protect tourists’ interests.
McKnight (2002)
Note: CAI = content analysis and interviews.
45
Table 4. Demographic Profiles and Most Recent Travel Details of Respondents
Variable Category Distribution
(N = 415)
Distribution
(N = 319)
Gender Male 189 (45.5%) 151 (47.34%)
Female 226 (54.5%) 168 (52.66%)
Age 18–25 146 (35.2%) 62 (19.44%)
26–30 72 (17.3%) 83 (26.02%)
31–40 86 (20.7%) 72 (22.57%)
41–50 62 (14.9%) 51 (15.99%)
51–60 42 (10.1%) 33 (10.34%)
61 and above 7 (1.7%) 18 (5.64%)
Education Senior high school or below 4 (1.0%) 15 (4.70%)
Junior college 53 (12.8%) 64 (20.06%)
Undergraduate 236 (56.9%) 178 (55.80%)
Postgraduate or above 122 (29.4%) 62 (19.44%)
Occupation Government staff/civil servant 24 (5.8%) 25 (7.84%)
Enterprise staff 93 (22.4%) 65 (20.38%)
Teacher 56 (13.5%) 46 (14.42%)
Private business owner 54 (13.0%) 43 (13.48%)
Student 136 (32.8%) 70 (21.94%)
Freelancer 15 (3.6%) 28 (8.78%)
Retired 12 (2.9%) 20 (6.27%)
Other 25 (6.0%) 22 (6.90%)
Travel
destination
Northeast China 16 (3.9%) 12 (3.76%)
North China 141 (34.0%) 85 (26.65%)
East China 103 (24.8%) 67 (21.00%)
Central China 39 (9.4%) 37 (11.60%)
South China 25 (6.0%) 32 (10.03%)
Southwest China 38 (9.2%) 40 (12.54%)
Northwest China 22 (5.3%) 18 (5.64%)
Abroad 31 (7.5%) 28 (8.78%)
Types of
tourism
enterprises
Offline travel agency 95 (22.9%) 60 (18.81%)
Online travel enterprise 98 (23.6%) 79 (24.76%)
Tourism attraction 211 (50.8%) 166 (52.04%)
Hotel 184 (44.3%) 137 (42.95%)
Other 49 (11.8%) 36 (11.29%)
46
Table 5. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Tourism Market Regulation (N = 415)
NO. Factors/Items Component
1 2 3 4 5
Regulatory oversight (RO)
Q25 The institutions regulating the tourism market are sound. 0.848
Q24 The laws and regulations protecting tourists are perfect. 0.835
Q27 Regulatory authorities protect tourists’ interests. 0.748
Q23 The market transaction in the tourism industry is fair. 0.701
Q26 Regulatory authorities ensure the tourism market is
regulated.
0.674
Fulfilling tourism contracts (FTC)
Q16 Tourism enterprises or service staff does not deceive
tourists.
0.793
Q15 Tourism enterprises or service staff does not force tourists
to consume.
0.787
Q12 The tourism products provided are consistent with the
signed contract.
0.743
Q14 Tourism enterprises or service staff does not arbitrarily
suspend service activities.
0.740
Q13 Travel services meet service standards agreed on by both
parties.
0.584
Travel feedback processing (TFP)
Q21 Regulatory authorities deal with complaints quickly. 0.843
Q22 Regulatory authorities quickly resolve complaints
according to the law.
0.829
Q17 Tourism feedback channel is unobstructed. 0.705
Q20 Tourism enterprises quickly resolve my complaints
according to the law.
0.693
Q18 Tourism complaint-handling procedures are regulated. 0.661
Tourism contract compliance (TCC)
Q7 The travel contract clearly states the included product. 0.813
Q8 The travel contract clearly states the self-financed items. 0.715
Q6 Tourism products are clearly priced. 0.655
Q5 The travel contract is signed with the consent of both
parties.
0.619
Truth in advertising (TIA)
Q1 Tourism information is transparent. 0.775
Q2 Tourism information is true. 0.746
Q4 Tourism information does not violate laws and regulations. 0.646
Q3 There is no misleading tourism information. 0.635
Eigenvalue 9.595 2.377 1.542 1.200 1.139
Percentage of variance explained 41.717 10.335 6.706 5.218 4.951
Coefficient alpha 0.894 0.883 0.902 0.781 0.801
Number of attributes 5 5 5 4 4
Note: KMO = 0.925; Bartlett test of sphericity, 2 = 5953.20 (p < 0.000).
47
Table 6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for the Final Model of Tourism Market Regulation (N = 319)
Factors/Items CR AVE Factor
loading SE CR
Cronbach’s
alpha
Truth in advertising (TIA) 0.795 0.496 0.790
Tourism information is transparent. 0.649
Tourism information is true. 0.808 0.111 11.13
There is no misleading tourism information. 0.729 0.116 10.461
Tourist information does not violate laws and
regulations. 0.614 0.104 9.156
Tourism contract compliance (TCC) 0.748 0.500 0.738
The travel contract clearly states the included
product.
0.657
The travel contract clearly states the self-
financed items.
0.816 0.112 8.877
Tourism products are clearly priced. 0.635 0.139 9.129
Fulfilling tourism contracts (FTC) 0.844 0.580 0.838
The tourism products provided are consistent
with the signed contract.
0.628
Tourism enterprises or service staff does not
arbitrarily suspend service activities.
0.660 0.122 9.904
Tourism enterprises or service staff does not
force tourists to consume. 0.839 0.156 11.775
Tourism enterprises or service staff does not
deceive tourists.
0.887 0.146 12.086
Travel feedback processing (TFP) 0.898 0.692 0.887
The tourism feedback channel is unobstructed. 0.635
Tourism enterprises can quickly resolve my
complaints according to the law. 0.825 0.092 12.252
Regulatory authorities deal with my complaints
quickly.
0.919 0.092 13.178
Regulatory authorities quickly resolve my
complaints according to the law.
0.916 0.095 13.161
Regulatory oversight (RO) 0.887 0.616 0.881
The market transaction in the tourism industry is
fair. 0.587
The laws and regulations protecting tourists are
perfect. 0.835 0.136 11.153
The institutions regulating the tourism market
are sound. 0.918 0.141 11.723
Regulatory authorities ensure the tourism market
is regulated. 0.868 0.130 11.407
Regulatory authorities protect tourists' interests. 0.665 0.136 9.614
Note: CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; C.R.: critical ratio; for all items, p < 0.001.
48
Table 7. Correlations and Square Roots of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (N = 319).
AVE TIA TCC FTC TCT RO
TIA 0.496 0.704
TCC 0.500 0.472 0.707
FTC 0.580 0.670 0.382 0.762
TCT 0.692 0.417 0.229 0.405 0.832
RO 0.616 0.344 0.214 0.347 0.520 0.785
Note: The diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE. Numbers below the diagonal are the
correlations between the dimensions (p < 0.05).
49
Supplementary material for online publication
Appendix A. Questionnaire
How to evaluate tourism market regulation?
An investigation of tourist market regulation from tourists’ perspective
Thank you for participating in this survey. Please make an objective analysis of the tourism
market regulation based on your latest travel experience. This questionnaire is completely
anonymous and only used for academic research.
Section Ⅰ. Screening question
Have you had a travel experience in the past 12 months?
□ Yes □ No (Stop the survey)
Section Ⅱ. Travel details
The area where you traveled most recently (possible answers include 34 provincial-level
administrative regions in China and abroad).
□
The type of tourism enterprises that recently provided you with products or services
(Multiple choice questions)
□ Offline travel agency □ Online travel enterprise □ Tourist attractions □ Hotel
□ Others
Section Ⅲ. Measurement items
1 = Strongly Disagree; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Strongly Agree
1. Tourism information is transparent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Tourism information is true. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50
3. There is no misleading tourism information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Tourism information does not violate laws and regulations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. The travel contract is signed with the consent of both parties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. The travel contract clauses are specific. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. The travel contract clearly states the included product. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. The travel contract clearly states the self-financed items. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Tourism products are clearly priced. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. There are no overruling clauses that infringe on tourists’ interests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Tourism enterprises perform their obligations according to the signed
contract. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. The tourism products provided are consistent with the signed contract. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Travel services meet service standards agreed on by both parties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Tourism enterprises or service staff does not arbitrarily suspend service
activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Tourism enterprises or service staff does not force tourists to consume. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Tourism enterprises or service staff does not deceive tourists. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Tourism feedback channel is unobstructed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Tourism complaint-handling procedures are regulated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Tourism enterprises give positive feedback on issues I raise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Tourism enterprises quickly resolve my complaints according to the
law. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. Regulatory authorities deal with my complaints quickly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. Regulatory authorities quickly resolved my complaints according to the
law. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. The market transaction in tourism industry is fair. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. The laws and regulations protecting tourists are perfect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. The institutions regulating the tourism market are sound. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. Regulatory authorities ensure the tourism market is regulated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Regulatory authorities protect tourists' interests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Section Ⅳ. Demographic Information
1. Gender: □ Male □ Female
2. Age: □18–25 years old □26–30 □31–40 □41–50 □51–60 □61 years or older
3. Highest level of education:
□Senior high school or below □Junior college □Undergraduate □Postgraduate or above
4. Occupation: □Government staff/civil servant □Enterprise staff □Teacher
□Private business owner □Student □Freelancer □Retired □Other
5. Which province/city or area are you living in? □
Thank you very much for your participation!
51
Appendix B. Questionnaire
Section Ⅲ. Measurement items (The other sections are consistent with the EFA
questionnaire.)
1 = Strongly Disagree; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Strongly Agree
1. Tourism information is transparent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Tourism information is true 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. There is no misleading tourism information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Tourism information does not violate laws and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. The travel contract is signed with the consent of both parties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. The travel contract clearly states the included product 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. The travel contract clearly states the self-financed items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Tourism products are clearly priced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. The tourism products provided are consistent with the signed contract 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Travel services meet service standards agreed by both parties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Tourism enterprises or service staff do not arbitrarily suspend service
activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Tourism enterprises or service staff do not force tourists to consume 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Tourism enterprises or service staff do not deceive tourists 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Tourism feedback channel is unobstructed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Tourism complaints handling procedures are regulated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Tourism enterprises quickly resolve my complaints according to the
law 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Regulatory authorities deal with my complaints quickly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Regulatory authorities quickly resolved my complaints according to the
law 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. The market transaction in tourism industry is fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. The laws and regulations protecting tourists are perfect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. The institutions regulating the tourism market are sound 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. Regulatory authorities ensure the tourism market is regulated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Regulatory authorities protect tourists' interests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
52
您怎么评价旅游市场秩序?游客视角的旅游市场秩序调查
尊敬的先生/女士:
您好!首先非常感谢您在百忙之中填写问卷。请您根据最近一次的旅游经历对旅游市场秩序状
况做出客观评价,按同意程度由低到高依次为:1-非常不同意、2-不同意、3-有些不同意、4-一
般、5-有些同意、6-同意、7-非常同意。您的回答对本研究十分重要,本问卷完全匿名且仅用于学
术研究,我们对您的支持表示衷心感谢!
第 1 部分:筛选问题
您是否有过旅游的经历?【 】
A.有 B.没有
第 2 部分:旅游信息
Ⅰ. 您最近旅游的目的地(中国 34 个省级行政区域或其他国家和地区)。
————————————
Ⅱ. 最近一次为您提供产品或服务的旅游企业类型【 】(旅游企业指旅行社、景区以及为旅游者提
供交通、住宿、餐饮、购物、娱乐等服务的企业。)
A.线下旅行社 B. 在线旅游企业 C.景区 D.酒店 E.其他————————————
1 = 非常不同意; 4 = 一般; 7 = 非常同意
1.旅游信息是公开透明的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2.旅游信息是真实的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3.无误导性的旅游信息 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.旅游信息不违反法律法规 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5.旅游合同是在双方同意下形成的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6.旅游合同的条款约定明确 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7.旅游合同中明确说明了所含产品项目 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8.旅游合同中明确说明了自费项目 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9.旅游产品是明码标价的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. 旅游合同中无侵害旅游者权益的霸王条款 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11.旅游企业能够按照签订的合同履行义务 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12.旅游企业提供的旅游产品与合同是一致的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
53
13.旅游服务符合双方约定的服务标准和规范 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14.旅游企业或服务人员不擅自中止服务活动 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15.旅游企业或服务人员无强制游客消费的行为 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16.旅游企业或服务人员不欺诈游客 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17.旅游投诉反馈渠道是通畅的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18.旅游投诉反馈处理程序是规范的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19.旅游企业能够对我提出的问题做出积极反馈 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20.旅游企业能够依法快速解决我的投诉 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21.监管部门能够对我的投诉做出迅速反馈 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22.监管部门能够依法快速解决我的投诉 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23.旅游行业的市场交易是公平公正的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24.保护旅游者的相关法律法规是完善的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25.规范旅游市场运行的相关制度是健全的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26.监管部门确保旅游市场是规范有序的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27.监管部门注重旅游者权益的保护 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
人口统计学信息
1. 您的性别: [单选题] *
□男 □女
2. 您的年龄段: [单选题] *
□18 岁以下 □18-25 岁 □26-30 岁 □31-40 岁 □41-50 岁 □51-60 岁 □60 岁以上
3. 您的学历: [单选题] *
□高中及以下 □大专 □本科 □硕士 □博士
4. 您目前从事的职业: [单选题] *
□政府机关/事业单位职员 □企业/公司职员 □教育工作者 □私营业主/个体户 □农民 □学生 □自由
职业者 □离退休人员 □其他
5. 您所在的省份或地区:—————————————————— *
非常感谢您的支持与参与!
54
Appendix C. Descriptive statistics (sample for EFA)
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error Statistic
Std.
Error
Q1 415 1 7 4.22 1.505 -0.168 0.12 -0.737 0.239
Q2 415 1 7 4.51 1.364 -0.159 0.12 -0.764 0.239
Q3 415 1 7 3.96 1.555 0.188 0.12 -0.81 0.239
Q4 415 1 7 4.94 1.485 -0.576 0.12 -0.558 0.239
Q5 415 1 7 5.5 1.196 -1.034 0.12 0.838 0.239
Q6 415 1 7 4.42 1.45 -0.118 0.12 -0.726 0.239
Q7 415 1 7 4.68 1.445 -0.311 0.12 -0.792 0.239
Q8 415 1 7 4.69 1.413 -0.355 0.12 -0.727 0.239
Q9 415 1 7 4.63 1.46 -0.268 0.12 -0.789 0.239
Q10 415 1 7 4.33 1.554 -0.15 0.12 -0.734 0.239
Q11 415 1 7 4.73 1.329 -0.361 0.12 -0.26 0.239
Q12 415 1 7 4.54 1.32 -0.158 0.12 -0.478 0.239
Q13 415 1 7 4.61 1.301 -0.178 0.12 -0.401 0.239
Q14 415 1 7 4.89 1.325 -0.521 0.12 -0.178 0.239
Q15 415 1 7 4.16 1.673 -0.081 0.12 -0.941 0.239
Q16 415 1 7 4.19 1.551 0.047 0.12 -0.747 0.239
Q17 415 1 7 3.85 1.411 0.047 0.12 -0.495 0.239
Q18 415 1 7 3.99 1.27 -0.103 0.12 -0.374 0.239
Q19 415 1 7 4.07 1.405 -0.001 0.12 -0.241 0.239
Q20 415 1 7 3.97 1.386 0.161 0.12 -0.19 0.239
Q21 415 1 7 3.94 1.436 0.083 0.12 -0.333 0.239
Q22 415 1 7 3.94 1.443 0.087 0.12 -0.261 0.239
Q23 415 1 7 3.83 1.34 0.089 0.12 -0.346 0.239
Q24 415 1 7 3.79 1.422 0.100 0.12 -0.421 0.239
Q25 415 1 7 3.74 1.378 0.036 0.12 -0.431 0.239
Q26 415 1 7 3.55 1.345 0.238 0.12 -0.18 0.239
Q27 415 1 7 4.11 1.454 0.062 0.12 -0.341 0.239
55
Appendix D. Descriptive statistics (sample for CFA)
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error Statistic
Std.
Error
Q1 319 1 7 4.38 1.237 -0.064 0.137 -0.368 0.272
Q2 319 1 7 4.46 1.233 0.010 0.137 -0.672 0.272
Q3 319 1 7 3.88 1.333 0.356 0.137 -0.291 0.272
Q4 319 2 7 5.21 1.249 -0.621 0.137 -0.262 0.272
Q5 319 1 7 5.67 1.028 -1.131 0.137 2.083 0.272
Q6 319 1 7 4.79 1.342 -0.279 0.137 -0.490 0.272
Q7 319 1 7 4.72 1.380 -0.426 0.137 -0.297 0.272
Q8 319 1 7 4.79 1.393 -0.407 0.137 -0.366 0.272
Q9 319 1 7 4.58 1.132 -0.279 0.137 -0.253 0.272
Q10 319 2 7 4.83 1.143 -0.357 0.137 -0.314 0.272
Q11 319 1 7 4.95 1.300 -0.659 0.137 0.091 0.272
Q12 319 1 7 4.32 1.554 -0.226 0.137 -0.804 0.272
Q13 319 1 7 4.29 1.415 -0.026 0.137 -0.648 0.272
Q14 319 1 7 3.96 1.400 0.148 0.137 -0.514 0.272
Q15 319 1 7 4.14 1.215 0.039 0.137 -0.174 0.272
Q16 319 1 7 3.83 1.213 0.175 0.137 0.022 0.272
Q17 319 1 7 3.84 1.173 0.073 0.137 0.270 0.272
Q18 319 1 7 3.89 1.215 0.095 0.137 0.179 0.272
Q19 319 1 7 3.98 1.169 0.019 0.137 -0.043 0.272
Q20 319 1 7 3.75 1.251 0.048 0.137 -0.286 0.272
Q21 319 1 7 3.65 1.240 0.101 0.137 -0.131 0.272
Q22 319 1 7 3.52 1.170 0.109 0.137 -0.092 0.272
Q23 319 1 7 4.11 1.350 0.241 0.137 -0.162 0.272